Face to face with King Robert I

By chance the other day I found this article about the latest work in facial reconstruction on the skull of King Robert I of Scots:

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/heres-what-robert-the-bruces-face-would-have-looked-like-thanks-to-science-140441526.html

The King's scull and the reconstruction

Image: University of Glasgow/Daily Telegraph

The information site Royal Central has the following post about the research:

A new reconstruction of Robert the Bruce’s face shows that the medieval King of Scots suffered from leprosy.

The reconstruction, a joint project between the University of Glasgow and Liverpool John Moores University, determined that due to the disfigured jaw and nose, it was extremely likely that the legendary warrior-king suffered from the ailment.

Professor Caroline Wilkinson, the director of the Face Lab at Liverpool John Moores University, told The Daily Telegraph that two versions of Robert the Bruce’s face were constructed – one without leprosy and one with mild leprosy.

“We could accurately establish the muscle formation from the positions of the skull bones to determine the shape and structure of the face,” Wilkinson said.

Regarding whether the King suffered from leprosy, she said, “He may have had leprosy, but if he did it is likely that it did not manifest strongly on his face.”

Professor Wilkinson also reconstructed the face of Richard III after his remains were found under a car park in Leicester.

No visual depictions exist of Robert the Bruce, and no written accounts include a description of his appearance. Professor Wilkinson says the team relied on “statistical evaluation to determine that Robert the Bruce most likely had brown hair and light brown eyes.”

Robert the Bruce reigned from 25 March 1309 to 7 June 1329 and led Scotland in the First Scottish War of Independence. He is best known as a warrior-king, having launched campaigns in Scotland, England, and Ireland. He defeated Edward II’s armies in 1314.

The cause of Robert the Bruce’s death is uncertain, but the rumour has spread in the ensuing centuries that he suffered from leprosy. Records from his reign show that he suffered from a mystery illness several times, but it is never named.

Historians and experts at the Robert the Bruce Heritage Centre say it would have been impossible for him to attend to his regular duties if he’d suffered from leprosy. Today, leprosy – or Hansen’s Disease – is a rare and treatable infection that can be cured with a multidrug therapy treatment.

Robert the Bruce’s tomb was discovered on 17 February 1818, when workmen broke through the ground on the site of Dunfermline Abbey in Scotland and uncovered a vault. Inside, a decaying oak coffin was found, and once opened, researchers found the body encased in lead. It was later removed from the lead and inspected, and researchers discovered that the skeleton measured 5 feet 11 inches, and the sternum had been sawn to allow the heart to be removed and buried separately – a common practice at the time.

A plaster cast of the King’s skull was taken to the Royal College of Surgeon’s Hunterian Museum, and several reconstructions have taken place since then.

His coffin was reinterred on 5 November 1819, placed into a new lead coffin to preserve the remains.

Dr Martin MacGregor led the project. Dr MacGregor, a senior lecturer at the University of Glasgow, says he was inspired by the reconstruction of Richard III’s face and wanted to apply the methods to Robert the Bruce.

“The case of Richard III revealed how far the technology had advanced and I saw an opportunity to apply the technology to the Hunterian skull held here at Glasgow.”

Yesterday's Daily Telegraph had an illustrated article about the project which supplies additional historical and scientific information and which can be seen at  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/08/face-robert-bruce-reconstructed-showing-scottish-king-had-leprosy/

Bannockburn

Today is the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. There can be little doubt that this was one of the most significant battle sin not only Scottish history, but in British history. Not only did it ensure Scottish independence in the early fourteenth century it created the conditions for that independence, or national identity, to become a continuing reality. 

The battle, and its memory, indeed its myth, became part of Scottish identity, and that has meant teh survival of a distinct Scots polity. Union with England both in the person on the monarch in 1603 and of the parliaments in 1707 did not involve the loss of national identity, of institutions and structures, of law and religion. I may regret that some aspects of Scottish history and life and not like those here in England - I distictly prefer Anglicanism to Calvinism for example - but they are facts of history. They are in part consequences of Bannockburn.

For England, especially for the northern counties, the defeat was a continuing disaster, with Scottish raids deep into Yorkshire. In 1319 the Scots reached the central part of the county, and may well have wintered in the Morley wapentake, and both sides of the border became areas of conflict and raiding with long term consequences both aggravating and aggravated by the European famine of 1315-17 - these were grim years indeed.

As someone of, so far as I know, entirely English ancestry I can respect the Scots identity and the achievement of King Robert I and his supporters. The Scottish fact adds to the rich history and diversity of the United Kingdom. Both of the ancient kingdoms that became Great Britain in 1707 have had and continue to have much to offer each other in their union. So I can reflect historically on the events of 1314, respect the Scots achievement in the decades following, and remain firmly of the opinion that moderrn "independence" for Scotland would be a disaster. It is understandable, but regrettable, that the SNP administration in Edinburgh has managed to hold the referenduim this year - I think at one point they actually sought to hold it today - and to obscure the proper historical understanding of Bannockburn. Historical sentiment and political sentiment can be dangerous bedfellows.

There is an online account of the battle at Battle of Bannockburn, and the BBC today has an illustrated piece about it which can be viewed at Battle of Bannockburn: What was it all about?.

Their website also has an interesting piece entitled Oldest surviving' Bannockburn manuscript restored which is about a copy of 1478 at St John's College Cambridge of John Barbour's The Brus, originally probably written circa 1375.

Given the extensive loss of life at the battle one way to commemorate it would be to pray for the dead of that day and for all who fought there.

King Robert I

Today is the 685th anniversary of the death of King Robert I of Scots.

Robert the Bruce (Brus) or, as he became in 1306, King Robert I of Scots, was born on 11 July 1274, almost 740 years ago. As King of Scots from 25 March 1306 until his death, although not recognised as such by the English until 1328 and the Treaty of Northampton, he is arguably the greatest, and certainly one of the greatest of Scottish monarchs. His assertion of independence, his victory at Bannockburn in 1314, the writing by his nobility of the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, and his successful campaigns against King Edward II in the north of England ensured the survival of Scotland as an seperate kingdom. The grant by Pope John XXII to him of the right for his succcessors to be anointed as monarchs was a further expression of sovereignty, and in advance of several other European kingdoms.

That said the events of the early fourteenth century should perhaps be looked upon with caution in making decisions about Scottish independence today in the twenty-first century. unity in diversity after so long aperiod of Union seems the right answer to me. Nonetheless without King Robert I the Scots (and, to the extent they are paying any attention at all, the English) would not be having the current debate about Scottish independence. It was King Robert, and not the semi-terrorist Wallace - the utterly appalling film Braveheart notwithstanding - who forged or reforged the national identity of his kingdom.

He was the son of Robert Bruce, 6th Lord of Annandale, and Marjorie, Countess of Carrick, and was born at Turnberry Castle. Although it is unknown whether Turnberry Castle is his actual birthplace, the fact that he spent his boyhood residing in the castle is not in doubt. Little now remains of the castle, its few stone smarked by the lighthouse which is a landmark near the golf course at Turnberry.

Reconstruction of Turnberry Castle. 

Click on the images to view full-size.  Copyright:Andrew Spratt.

Images:Maybole.org 

There is more about the castle and its history from the same website which can be viewed here.

The King's last years were marked by illness, and from a cast of his skull, found in 1818, at Dunfermline where he was buried a scientist, Richard Neave, has recreated the closest ever likeness of Robert the Bruce. This reveals the leprosy ravaged face of the warrior King Robert I at the age of 55, just before his death. It shows how the condition destroyed the cartilage in his nose causing it to collapse, and also shows a huge wound down his skull, fractured bones around the eye and a toothless mouth.

A facial reconstruction of King Robert I

Image:yannatry.blogspot.com

Cast of the King's scull - Dumfries Museum

Image: undiscoveredscotland.co.uk

The King died at his manor house at Cardross near Dunbarton on the Firth of Clyde and his body was buried at Dunfermline Abbey, the shrine of St Margaret of Scotland, but his heart was removed and was to be taken on Crusade by Sir James Douglas, before eventually being buried at Melrose Abbey.

The link National Museums Scotland - Robert Bruce has expandable images of the King's Great Seal, of some of his coins and of artifacts associated with him and of fragments of his original tomb from Dunfermline.

The modern tomb of King Robert I at Dunfermline Abbey

Image: undiscoveredscotland.co.uk